GPL, Copyleft On the Rise

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday March 3, 2012 @04:33AM from the GOP-hoping-it-can-beat-romney dept.

paxcoder writes "Contrary to earlier analyses that predicted a decline of copyleft software share to as little as 50% this year, John Sullivan, the executive director of the Free Software Foundation, claims the opposite has happened: In his talk at FOSDEM 2012 titled 'Is Copyleft Being Framed?,' Sullivan presented evidence (PDF) of a consistent increase of usage of copyleft licenses in relation to the usage of permissive licenses in free software projects over the past few years. Using publicly available package information provided by the Debian project, his study showed that the number of packages using the GPL family in that distribution this year reached a share of 93% of all packages with (L)GPLv3 usage rising 400% between the last two Debian versions."

24 of 277 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Cherrypicking sources by Barbara,+not+Barbie · 2012-03-03 04:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

The earlier study looked at a much broader base of projects, not just cherry-picking by limiting itself to packages in a distro.

--
Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
1. Re:Cherrypicking sources by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-03 04:50 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  "The earlier study looked at a much broader base of projects, not just cherry-picking by limiting itself to packages in a distro."
  Good point. The update in the On the continuing decline of the GPL article also mentions this: "UPDATE – It is has been rightfully noted that this decline relates to the proportion of all open source software, while the number of projects using the GPL family has increased in real terms. Using Black Duck’s figures we can calculate that in fact the number of projects using the GPL family of licenses grew 15% between June 2009 and December 2011, from 105,822 to 121,928. However, in the same time period the total number of open source projects grew 31% in real terms, while the number of projects using permissive licenses grew 117%. – UPDATE"
2. Re:Cherrypicking sources by MatthiasF · 2012-03-03 04:58 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  And doesn't Debian actually actively work for make sure the packages it distributes are GPL?
  
  So, not only is he cherrypicking but he picked a project that strives to use Copyleft.
  
  http://www.debian.org/News/2012/20120219
  
  The actual study mentioned in the talk came out last month and was written up here.
  
  http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/52838-gpl-use-in-debian-on-the-rise-study
  
  John Sullivan even called picking only one distribution as "scientific". I'm not sure he knows what the word means.
3. Re:Cherrypicking sources by KiloByte · 2012-03-03 05:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Or rather, it's cherry-picking by quality. Any useful project that is not fundamentally restricted to Mac or Windows will most likely be ported by someone, and packaged for Debian. Fart apps, not so much.
  It's also interesting how fast non-GPL licenses decline. We're talking about falling by a factor of 4.2 in less than seven years.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
4. Re:Cherrypicking sources by rtfa-troll · 2012-03-03 05:13 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  And doesn't Debian actually actively work for make sure the packages it distributes are GPL?
  Not at all. They just tend to make selections of the projects which actually work rather than the hundreds of projects that never go anywhere. The Debian Free Software Guidelines mean that main distribution software has to be free, but basically anyone who has motivation and acceptable software can get their package in.
  Simply put, if a package isn't in Debian then it mostly very specialised, quite new or isn't worth touching. If there are several Debian packages and you don't know which to go for, then go for the one which is in Red Hat since that will be the most professionally maintained package.
  The first survey may have been representative of packages which people start developing, but this is more representative of packages which are actually useful.
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
5. Re:Cherrypicking sources by Ihmhi · 2012-03-03 19:34 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Nor I - Firefox is essential for NoScript and Adblock alone.
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Makes sense by DaleGlass · 2012-03-03 04:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

IMO, if you're writing or releasing software, the GPL is preferrable. You benefit from patches, even being able to take those people don't intentionally contribute. You keep your code unusuable to those competitors who follow a closed management model. You also get to use it as advertisement if you're willing to offer an alternate license for money.
If you're looking to use somebody else's software though, of course the BSD is best. But the thing is that once you spent a few months working on code, a BSD license can be a bit of a hard sell for anything important, because you have nothing of the above. I think for most people some degree of attachment and desire of control develops after spending a lot of time on something.
1. Re:Makes sense by oiron · 2012-03-03 05:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The way I'd do it is, GPL for applications, BSD/MIT/LGPL for libraries, depending on the level of participation, the commercial and legal aspects, etc. And all university research should always be permissive, so that it can be incorporated into either GPLed, proprietary or whatever else.
  Isn't it easy enough to see that all the licenses solve different problems? Some are good to bring a piece of research out into the open, and some are great for protecting freedoms... No point mixing the use cases...
2. Re:Makes sense by rtfa-troll · 2012-03-03 05:57 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  it restricts you from editing the source code, because you become liable to all sorts of legal responsibilities if you do so.''''
  No it doesn't. You can edit privately and use the software internally in your company and never even have to touch the terms of the GPL. On the other hand, if you never edit the software, but you distribute the software then you normally need to follow the terms of the GPL even if you have never edited it.
  Interestingly enough, some of the largest IT companies, like IBM, Oracle, RedHat, Ubuntu and even Microsoft disagree with you and happily work with and distribute GPL software.
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
3. Re:Makes sense by hydrofix · 2012-03-03 06:03 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I write for my own benefit, not for the "IT community". I want attribution, and your improvements to my code, or your money in exchange for a different license. I have no reason to give you code with no strings attached, no matter how much that might displease you.
  And how is this free software? I think most people would intuitively think that something "free" comes without strings attached. And this is where the deception of GPL lies: it is not really a free software license (except in some idealistic form as defined by the GNU foundation), but a restrictive license that actually discourages free use of the author's creation.
4. Re:Makes sense by hydrofix · 2012-03-03 07:15 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The only successful and widely adopted open source OS says otherwise.
  Ermm.. Nope. UNIX is the most widely-adopted open source OS. One brand of it currently has 15% market share in the North American consumer market. And key to its success? It's not GPL!
  Linux is open source, but not free for commercial reuse. It has been exploited in some embedded devices (while more than not totally ignoring the copyleft/ShareAlike properties of GPL). A notable example is the unwillingness of Google to open their Linux source code, but there are thousands of smaller corporations out there who simply ignore the GPL when reusing Linux.
Obvious problem with the research by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-03 04:52 · Score: 3, Funny

So one study, which looks at the wide ecosystem of open source software finds copyleft is on the decline. But a study which only focuses on a Linux distribution which has a strong focus on GPL finds copyleft is increasing? Isn't that a bit like going to a Green Peace rally and saying a majority of people surveyed support saving whales?
1. Re:Obvious problem with the research by Just+Some+Guy · 2012-03-03 07:31 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Your point was funny and well illustrated, but I'm not sure it's correct. Is Debian actually biased toward the GPL over other F/OSS licenses? Their Debian Free Software Guidelines and Software License FAQ explicitly suggests the BSD and MIT licenses for authors who want their code to be useable by everyone. They also call out the Artistic License by name in the "What Does Free Mean?" section of the "Introduction to Debian".
  I've never thought of Debian as particularly pro-GPL in particular so much as pro-Free Software in general.
  
  --
  Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
The sad part. by philip.paradis · 2012-03-03 04:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

I've seen so many developers just slap the GPL on their code because it's perceived as the "default" choice. When asked why they chose to use the GPL, they can't even explain its basic provisions. When told how it works, many of those same developers will say "oh, that's not really my intent." Sadly, because of the original "default" perception, a ton of code gets licensed this way.
I aggressively support the right to license something any way creators see fit, and happen to license my most of my stuff under the BSD and Artistic licenses. That said, people really need to understand what different licenses provide before they run off using them. When in any doubt whatsoever regarding any of it, it wouldn't be a terrible idea to pay for an hour of a lawyer's time (if possible).

--
Write failed: Broken pipe
1. Re:The sad part. by Qubit · 2012-03-03 05:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I've seen so many developers just slap the GPL on their code because it's perceived as the "default" choice. When asked why they chose to use the GPL, they can't even explain its basic provisions. When told how it works, many of those same developers will say "oh, that's not really my intent." Sadly, because of the original "default" perception, a ton of code gets licensed this way.
  Do you think this is because many programmers see "open-sourcing" their software as a kind of "throw it over the wall" kind of exercise? Perhaps they don't have much invested in the benefits of a shared community around the code?
  My guess would be that for programmers who plan a livelyhood based on writing wholly (or near to it) FOSS code, something like the GPL protects their interests and future business possibilities in the market more than a permissive license like the 3-clause BSD. For programmers who write a lot of code under proprietary licenses, I can totally understand that they would (1) want (or rather NEED) to use permissively-licensed libraries, and (2) thus would be much inclined to release their code under those same permissive terms.
  
  I aggressively support the right to license something any way creators see fit, and happen to license my most of my stuff under the BSD and Artistic licenses. That said, people really need to understand what different licenses provide before they run off using them.
  Licenses are very tricky things. Given the entry barriers to writing some PHP code vs. understanding the provisions in the Artistic License, the GPL, what advertising clauses mean, etc..etc..., computer code is often easier than its legal counterpart.
  
  When in any doubt whatsoever regarding any of it, it wouldn't be a terrible idea to pay for an hour of a lawyer's time (if possible).
  Oh, it's certainly a good idea, but how many lawyers (or laypeople -- Hi, Bruce!) do you know who are expert enough to consult about ip, copyright, FOSS licensing, etc..? I know a handful, and I believe that they make over $300/hr -- some probably make a lot more than that!
  
  --
  
  coding is life /* the rest is */
2. Re:The sad part. by Kjella · 2012-03-03 05:33 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  On that note, the GPL is probably the "safer" choice. Releasing GPL code as BSD is simple, oh now you can use the code in proprietary code too. Going from BSD to GPL is trying to put the cat back in the bag, often leading to a fork and drama from those who no longer can/want to use it. If the developer is clueless it's less harmful that people can't use the code the way he intended than that people can use the code in ways he didn't intend. "Oh you want the code under the BSD, here you go" is a lot easier to fix than "OMG WTF you mean Apple and Microsoft can just take my code for nothing now? That's not what I wanted!"
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
3. Re:The sad part. by maxwell+demon · 2012-03-03 06:43 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  computer code is often easier than its legal counterpart
  Ok, the next time I'm having a deadlock situation with more than 10 threads involved, I'm calling my lawyer.
  I don't think you'll want to wait until a federal court has decided on the ownership of those mutexes. :-)
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
4. Re:The sad part. by maxwell+demon · 2012-03-03 06:49 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The only freedom the GPL restricts is your freedom to restrict the freedom of others.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
5. Re:The sad part. by icebraining · 2012-03-03 07:56 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  GPL is used as a tool to limit the rights of others
  No. That's copyright. The GPL doesn't add any restrictions, it eliminates them, under certain conditions.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
I think the FSF might be a bit biased by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-03 05:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think the FSF might be a bit biased. Don't you.
1. Re:I think the FSF might be a bit biased by ClickOnThis · 2012-03-03 07:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I think the FSF might be a bit biased. Don't you.
  Undobtedly the FSF is biased. That can hardly be disputed. But are they wrong?
  
  --
  If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Applications vs. Core Libraries and Services by msobkow · 2012-03-03 05:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

While non-copyleft licenses like the Mozilla, Apache, and LGPLv3 are quite popular for core services and libraries, most applications I've used over the years were copyleft/GPL type licenses.
If you're building a core service, you want it used by as many people and projects as possible. But if you're developing a tool, utility, or application, often your concern is more to prevent any one company or individual from seizing that work and selling it as their own product.
Personally I use both LGPLv3 and GPLv3 licenses as a result, because the goals of the different software components are not the same.

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Re:Pro-GPL study from authors of GPL ... by rtfa-troll · 2012-03-03 05:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

You left out the part where the pro-GPL study comes from the authors and advocates of the GPL.
Thanks for the hint (its astounding the way that accusations from shills so often point you in the direction of what they themselves are doing). You left out the fact that the original data came from a Microsoft partner involved in Codeplex. Immediately I saw your post I thought to search for that.

--
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Re:Perhaps, but... by Microlith · 2012-03-03 08:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Ooh look, a liar.

The GPL poisons commercial code -- intentionally -- and that keeps GPL'd software from ever bringing mainstream software developers into the fold.
Good way to completely incorrectly representing how the GPL works.

This is why the "year of the linux desktop" never comes. Those big packages everyone wants, from Photoshop to Office etc., the companies that create them simply can't afford to mix in with that kind of licensing.
Bullshit, plain and simple. There are LOTS of non-GPL packages, proprietary packages even, that run on Linux.

Ok, I know, here comes the mod-bombing, lol. :)
And for so blatantly lying and deliberately misrepresenting the GPL you deserve it.